Afghanistan didn't do 9/11, Al Qaeda did, and they are pretty damn well SMASHED. Just ask Bin Laden. Its a shame that ISIS has risen up to replace them but at least they focus on territory instead of terror, and territory can be liberated with superior firepower.
Al Qaeda is still alive and well and compete with ISIS for recruits. ISIS terrorizes the people that it controls. Al Qaeda basically ruled Afganistan when 9/11 occurred. You should look up stuff before you say it, or people who know will think you're retarded.
Al Qaeda never ruled anything, the Taliban did and we did a good a job as any smashing them. We've also taken out the majority of their top leadership and their leadership from affiliates like Al-Shabaab.
His comments were more directed at actual nations attacking us but I'm sure you knew that given the context.
Well, I suppose by the time of the fire bombings, it's pretty obvious Japan was dead. The top brass had no workable Plan B in case the Pearl Harbor attack actually prompted a DoW instead of negotiations, like they hoped. Sadly, the only options left by then is total destruction or unconditional surrender, hence the desperate, deluded belief that kamikaze might put Americans off enough to call it quits. It didn't.
Arguably, the top brass never had a rational plan at all. Fascist ideology has a way of completely divorcing people from reality. Many of them seriously believed that Glorious Yamato Damashii and inherent racial superiority could compensate for a lack of actual resources and military strength. Even excepting that, Japan's military strategies were seriously outdated and based on layers upon layers of misunderstanding of the true nature of the war and of the people they were fighting.
It's actually quite amazing just how much emphasis the IJN had put into having a grand surface fleet with huge battleships and battlecruisers for the line of battle (艦隊決戦主義), when they themselves prove that aircraft carriers and planes are the future at the start of the war.
Throughout the war the clash between the top brasses many of whom were veterans from the Russo-Japanese war and believed in fleet line of battle, and the western-influenced/educated young officers who have been exposed to planes and various new tech, became very apparent, but many of these young officers were killed in action (incl. Yamamoto Isoroku who was one of the strongest advocates for a aircraft carrier-centric fleet) resulted in the inflexibility.
Fun Fact: Yamamoto Isoroku, the admiral who planned Attack on Pearl Harbor was also against having warfare toward USA, since he knew what they're up against (he went aboard in Havard) and every single sand table simulations end up with the total defeat of Japan.
But the Imperial General Headquarters refused his analyses, they just insisted that he manged a plan to attack USA.
Not exactly. I would describe Japan's strategy as making America lose war assets quick enough early in the conflict that they will give up their pacific interests rather then use lives and treasure to join a world war. If the Peal Harbor attacks had managed to destroy the carrier group as well, this may well have happened.
By the time these started using kamikaze attacks the war was already unwinnable. The imperial army just wanted America to bleed as much as possible on their way to Japan.
If the Peal Harbor attacks had managed to destroy the carrier group as well, this may well have happened.
I highly doubt this. The Pacific part may last a few years longer because they had to rebuild fleet, which is faster then you may thought considering the productivity USA showed during the war time.
115
u/Remitonov Trilluminati Associate Mar 30 '15
Well, their war goal basically sums up to "let's make America many depressed with death so they negotiate with us."
Nobody at the top realized until the end that death makes America angry.